The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has launched a probe into the alleged arbitrary procurement of Romania brands by Parikh Agricultural Produce Marketing Board (PAPMB) and Mojhi Agricultural Produce Marketing Boar
CS Professional · Multidisciplinary Case Studies · PYQS · June 2022
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has launched a probe into the alleged arbitrary procurement of Romania brands by Parikh Agricultural Produce Marketing Board (PAPMB) and Mojhi Agricultural Produce Marketing Board (MAPMB), in violation of the Act's Section 4 requirements. The Director General (DG) stated that PAPMB, as the sole procurer of A+ category wheat in Madhya Pradesh, with a 100 percent market share and indisputable supremacy, had purposefully neglected the importance of diverse wheat brands. The DG found PAPMB in violation of Section 4(2)(c) of the legislation, as well as Section 4(2)(b)(i) of the act. MAPMB, on the other hand, was not found to be in violation. After a thorough deliberation, the CCI issued a show cause notice to PAPMB and MAPMB on August 30, 2018, asking them to explain why their actions should not be regarded to be in violation of section 4 of the act. An appeal was filed with the National Company Law Appellant Tribunal by a party who felt aggrieved by the same (NCLAT). You must demonstrate whether or not the appeal before the NCLAT is maintainable under Sections 53A and 53B.
Answer & Explanation:
Hon'ble NCLAT vide judgment dated 12.03.2020 in 'Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing Board vs. CCI & Ors.' held that it is clear from the impugned order that Competition Commission of India (CCI) issued show cause notice to GMVNL & KMVNL to show cause as to why their conduct should not be held to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 4(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) read with Section 4(1) of the Competition Act. The Informant alleged that the opposite parties including appellant herein had abused their dominant position in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and further alleged that the opposite parties including the appellant herein took advantage of their monopoly and abused their dominance. No specific finding had been given by the CCI against UAPMB. Section 53A of the Competition Act relate to establishment of Appellate Tribunal which can hear and dispose off the appeal against order passed under sub-section (2) and (6) of section 26, section 27, section 28, section 31, section 32, section 33, section 38, section 39, section 43, section 43A, section 44, section 45 or section 46 of the Act. Section 53B of the Act allows an enterprise aggrieved by any direction, decision or order referred to in clause (a) of Section 53A to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Further, the NCLAT observed that it was also clarified by the CCI in its order that nothing stated therein shall tantamount to a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the final view would be taken after considering the replies and arguments of the parties and the material on record. In view of the aforesaid fact, it was held by NCLAT that the impugned order did not amount to passing of an order under Section 27 of the Act and thereby the appeal under Section 53B read with Section 53A was not maintainable.
Topics: Competition Law
Related Questions in this Topic
- Zulma, a famous gynaecologist and obstetrician was the Managing Director, of Zulma Hospitals and Research Centre Private...
- Gajam Private Limited, is company duly registered and incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, havi...
- The Food Company for online orders, is charging prices higher than the prices (menu prices) charged by the respective re...
- HOPE Ltd is a manufacturer of cars of various models and is catering to both domestic and export markets. For this purpo...
- Competition Commission of India received complaints against Karisma Broadcasting Ltd. for abusing its dominant position....